Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TC Digest 2010-09-10
TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of September 6 -10, 2010 Tiburon 1. Email - Scott Anderson - Response to Boles Letter - Kol Shofar,Noise, Traffic and Parking Issues 2. Letter - Ann Danforth - Sign at 1660 Tiburon Boulevard 3. Press Release - Structure - CPUC Findings re SmartMeters (Full Report available electronically from Front Desk) 4. Letter - Marin Co. Civil Grand Jury - Disability Retirement Pensions - Town of Tiburon 5. Thank You to George Dailey - April Hopkins Rox -1830 Lagoon View Drive 6. Yearly Recap Design Review Submittals - August 2010 7. Monthly Report - Office of Design Review - August 2010 Agendas & Minutes 8. Minutes - Planning Commission - August 11, 2010 9. Minutes -Design Review Board -August 19, 2010 10. Action Minutes - Design Review Board - September 2, 2010 11. Action Minutes - Planning Commission - September 8, 2010 12. Agenda - Design Review Board - September 16, 2010 13. Agenda - POST - September 21, 2010 Reeional a) Letter - County Administrator - National Disability Employment Awareness Month - October b) Letter - LCC - AB1955 - Opposition to Bill Unless Amended c) Letter - Sutter Health - Marin County Health Care network Range of Services d) Invitation - Angel Island Immigration Station Found- Centennial Gala - 10/23/10 e) Transactions - MTC Newsletter - Summer 2010 f) Western City - September 2010 Agendas & Minutes g) None * Council Only Page 1 of 1 DIGEST I• Peggy Curran From: Scott Anderson Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 3:07 PM To: 'loganboles@gmail.doc' Cc: Peggy Curran Subject: FW: Kol Shofar Letter/copy via U S Mail- Dear Mr. Boles. Thank you for your letter dated August 30, 2010 regarding noise, traffic and parking issues with Congregation Kol Shofar. Your letter has been circulated and read by the entire Town Council. As you are aware, the conditional use permit for Kol Shofar was approved by the Town Council in 2007 after a series of public meetings and considerable input from residents in the surrounding neighborhoods. The CUP contains a number of conditions of approval pertaining to noise, traffic and parking issues and regulating the uses, activities and physical improvements at Kol Shofar. With the recent completion of Kol Shofar's construction project, the Town will be monitoring uses on the site for compliance with the CUP requirements. The CUP will be reviewed by the Tiburon Planning Commission at a public hearing six months after final occupancy of the multi-purpose building. At that time, the Commission will evaluate the effectiveness of the CUP requirements and will consider input from Kol Shofar and its neighbors about any possible changes to the conditions of approval. A Neighborhood Advisory Committee (NAC), consisting of several neighboring residents and representatives of Kol Shofar, has been formed and will meet periodically to address these issues as well, and may serve as a more frequent forum to express your concerns. We understand that it will take some time for Kol Shofar, its members and visitors, and neighboring residents to get used to the CUP parking and use requirements. With the exception of the portions of the surrounding streets where the curbs have recently been painted red as part of the CUP requirements, on-street parking is available for all members of the public, but vehicles are not allowed to block driveway access to any home. The Town has received several complaints about parking concerns and the extent of the red curbs on the streets around Kol Shofar, and will continue to pay close attention to the effectiveness of the CUP requirements in addressing these concerns. In the meantime, we hope that Kol Shofar and the nearby residents will demonstrate a spirit of cooperation in trying to resolve any issues and be good neighbors to each other. The Town of Tiburon appreciates your help, input and understanding in fostering good relationships between Kol Shofar and the residents of Tiburon. Sincerely, Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager 9/9/2010 Town of Tiburon - 1505 Tiburon Boulevard - Tiburon, CA 94920 - P. 415.435.7373 E 415.435.2438 - www.ci.tiburon.ca.us September 9, 2010 Law Offices of Albert E. Cordova 1101 Fifth Avenue Suite 200 San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: Sign at 1660 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon Dear Mr. Cordova: Tiburon Town Manager Peggy Curran has asked me to respond to your letter of August 24, 2010, regarding the sign that your client, Frank Howard Allen Realtors ("FHA"), installed at 1660 Tiburon Boulevard. FHA did not obtain a sign permit before erecting the sign, nor did it apply for or obtain the required building permit or electrical permit. Your letter responds to correspondence from Community Development Director Scott Anderson advising your client to remove the sign, as it would not qualify for a sign permit. You ask that the Town allow FHA to keep this sign. The FHA sign violates the Town's Sign Ordinance in three respects: The Town's sign ordinance prohibits such signs under Section 16A.805 (c), (f) and (h), as follows: • subsection (c) prohibits "animated and moving" signs, which is defined to include, without limitation, electronic display signs that move or change in light intensity; • subsection (f) prohibits electronic signs, defined to mean signs that use electronic (LED, LCD or other video-type) lighting displays, or a sign that is capable of remotely changing messages on a frequent (more than daily) basis. • Subsection (h) prohibits "internally-illuminated signs," defined to mean signs where the light source is internal to the sign and the illumination passes through the face of the sign. See Section 16A.805 (c), (f) and (h) of the Tiburon Municipal Code. I attach the full text of Section 16A.805. As attorney for FHA, you ask that the Town allow your client to keep its sign. You ask that the Town reconsider the "very broad class of signs" prohibited by the current ordinance and argue that the Town should allow FHA's electronic sign because it cannot be seen from the street and is less obtrusive that the paper listings normally posted in a. Alice- Fredericks . . Mayor . . Miles Berger Vice Mayor Dick Collins Councilmember Tom Gram Councilmember Jeff Slavitz Councilmember Margaret`. A. Curran Town Manager Albert E. Cordova September 8, 2010 Page 2 of 3 front of real estate offices. I am advised by the Community Development Director that the monitor is plainly visible from the public street. Further, you do not address the issue of FHA's failure to obtain permits. The Town Council adopted the current sign ordinance in February of 2009. Town staff worked on the ordinance for over a year, retaining the assistance of sign law expert Randal Morrison. The new Chapter 16A is longer and more complex than its predecessor, reflecting the dramatic changes in the law that occurred in the years after the Town adopted the old ordinance in 1992. To avoid any possibility on impinging on constitutionally protected speech, the ordinance relies on objective criteria that reflect the Town Council's determination of the types of signs that are - and are not - desirable in Tiburon for aesthetic or other reasons. You appear to suggest that the Town either create an exception that would allow FHA's sign based on its visual appearance and unobtrusiveness or eliminate the prohibition altogether. If the Town created the requested exception, the Town would be reverting back toward the type of subjective regulations that courts have found to violate the First Amendment. The Town Council could constitutionally eliminate the prohibition altogether by an amendment to the Sign Ordinance. However, I have seen no indication that the Council is interested in making that policy change. FHA has offered real estate services in the Town for many years and can be expected to know the Town's permit requirements. Frankly, I am surprised that FHA would erect an illegal sign, exposing itself to both citation and abatement. We do not wish to use these enforcement methods unless necessary and therefore ask that FHA remove its sign voluntarily within 10 days of the date of this letter. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, A ~e Ann R. Danforth Town Attorney Enclosure cc: Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Margaret A. Curran, Town Manager t3e Zl Structure TV FOR RELEASE SEPTEMBER 2, 2010 PRESS RELEASE Media Contact: Phyllis Goodson, 910.616-9160, plhyllis.goodson('u;thestructuregroup.com Structure Announces Findings of PG&E Smart Meter Assessment Customer Usage, Rates, Customer Service, and Process Issues are Largest Complaint Factors HOUSTON (September 2, 2010) - Structure TM, an industry leader in business advisory and consulting services to the energy and utilities industries, today provided to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) an Assessment Report of a five month evaluation of Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (PG&E) Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) system focused on electric residential customers. Structure concluded that the residential electric Smart Meters deployed by PG&E are consistent with industry standards and are performing accurately. However, Structure identified gaps in customer service and processes related to the handling of high bill complaints related to Smart Meter deployment, and determined certain PG&E practices to be partially non-compliant relative to industry best practices. In the presentation to the CPUC, Structure addressed the following questions: 1. Does PG&E's SmartMeterTM system measure and bill electric usage accurately, both now and since PG&E's Smart Meter deployment began? Structure confinned that Smart Meters are accurately recording electric usage at present, and the systems are correctly processing data and billing usage. Structure also confirmed there were no systemic issues found since Smart Meter deployment, beyond exceptions already reported by PG&E. The exceptions that were identified are limited and are not prevalent in the general population of deployed meters. 2. What factors contributed to Smart Meter high bill complaints? Structure's Assessment identified multiple factors that appeared to contribute to the escalation of Smart Meter high bill complaints during late 2009 and early 2010, including findings in the following areas: • Customer Usage: o Meter deployment schedules coincided with increased energy usage caused by a heat wave. o Some customers experienced load changes that were reflective of changes in personal circumstances. o Electromechanical meter degradation. • Rates: o Rate increases compounded the financial impact of the additional weather-related usage, resulting in higher bills that occurred as Smart Meters were being installed. Zl~~ Structure o Incorrectly applied rates that were based upon historical premise assumptions that affected customer baselines and rates. o Rate-related inquires increased as customer bills escalated. Requests for new enrollment or failure to manually renew enrollment in financial assistance through California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE). - • Customer Service: y o PG&E processes did not address the customer concerns associated with the new equipment and usage changes. o Customer skepticism regarding the new Advanced Metering technology was not addressed early or effectively by PG&E. o PG&E's customer complaint resolution process did not utilize detailed interval read information available from Smart Meters, which may have assisted customers' understanding of their individual hourly usage patterns. o Some customers interviewed during this assessment did not consider their complaint resolved, despite indications from PG&E and CPUC that the customer agreed with the resolution. • Process Issues: o PG&E utilized field meter readers for an average of 131 days after Smart Meters were installed, resulting in similar meter reading errors as electromechanical meters. The transition to automate the Smart Meter data for use in billing was not clearly addressed with customers. o PG&E's system tolerances related to billing quality control were not stringent enough, resulting in multiple bill cancelations and re-billings, which were confusing to customers. o Customers indicated that communications surrounding physical meter installation were lacking, or that the customer had issues with the installation personnel. 3. How does PG&E's SmartMeterTM program's past and current operational and deployment practices compare against the framework of industry best practices? Structure performed a review of PG&E's documentation of past and current operational and deployment policies, processes, and procedures against a framework of industry best practices. Structure found PG&E to have been historically in compliance (since the beginning of Smart Meter deployment), or have recently come into compliance, with many best practices associated with Smart Meters. However, Structure identified several items of partial or non-compliance related to industry best practices, particularly in the areas of complaint troubleshooting and account billing. To arrive at these answers, Structure divided the assessment into six components: • Laboratory meter testing • Field meter testing • End-to-end systems testing • Analysis of Smart Meter-related high bill complaints • Review of best practices associated with Smart Meters 2 Z' Structure TV. • Assessment of AMI security framework. As part of the assessment, Structure independently tested over 750 Smart Meters and 147 electromechanical meters. The laboratory meter testing included verifying 156 meters for accuracy and factory programming on a representative sample of new meters shipped from the manufacturer and obtained from multiple geographically-dispersed PG&E warehouse facilities. A portion of these meters were utilized to perfonn environmental stress testing in a controlled temperature chamber at reference, high, and low temperatures. All of the tested Smart Meters passed the applicable accuracy testing standard established by the industry. Field meter testing was performed on 611 Smart Meters and 147 electromechanical meters, and included site verification, meter type and form factor verification, proper installation, and meter program and accuracy verification across six scenarios. The pass/fail criteria were based upon the CPUC accuracy standard of t2.0% for electromechanical and Smart Meters. 100% of the 611 tested Smart Meters successfully passed the CPUC accuracy standard. Of the electromechanical meter field tests, 141 meters passed and 6 failed the CPUC accuracy standard. End-to-end system testing included both lab and field analysis on a small sample size to confirm meter to bill system accuracy. Structure verified the meter usage and event data from the customer premise, through the AMI and billing systems, to the customer's receipt of the printed bill. For both of these tests, Structure did not identify deviations during the testing that indicated a systemic problem in the meter billing system's accuracy. For the high bill complaint analysis, Structure reviewed and analyzed 1,378 electric Smart Meter high bill complaints and identified factors around customer usage, rates, customer service, and process issues. Results from 20 high bill complaint customer interviews identified specific service issues around complaint management by PG&E and the CPUC. Structure perfonmed a review of PG&E's documentation of past and current operational and deployment policies, processes, and procedures against a framework of industry best practices. As summarized above, Structure found PG&E to have been historically in compliance, or have recently come into compliance, with many industry best practices associated with Smart Meters, though certain PG&E practices were evaluated to be partially non-compliant. The security assessment was performed to provide a confirmation that controls were established and documented on the Smart Meter system. Structure concluded that PG&E has developed a cyber security framework that is compliant with industry best practices. Structure Principal Stacey Wood summarized Structure's perspective on this project as follows, "While Structure was able to verify the accuracy of the meters and flow of meter data to downstream billing systems, Structure did uncover issues that negatively impacted the customer experience, further complicating an already complex undertaking. Ultimately, the success of advanced metering programs like PG&E's - where improved energy efficiency and demand response are major drivers - will depend on an active dialogue and engagement with customers. We hope that our findings in this effort can be utilized to help PG&E, the CPUC, and other industry stakeholders develop improved practices around advanced metering deployments with an increased focus on appropriately engaging customers." Zl Structure TV The full report is available on the CPUC website on the page, Independent PG&E Smart Meter Testing, http://,",Avw.cpuc.ca.gov/PUCienergy/Demand+Response/solicit.htm. To provide an objective evaluation, Structure developed the findings of this study independently from the CPUC and PG&E, utilizing reasonable efforts to perfonn the assessment. Structure cannot provide assurances that all issues were identified or that future issues may not develop following completion of this assessment. About StructureTM Structure is a global consulting firm focused exclusively on the energy and utility industry, providing services and technology solutions. Structure focuses in providing a spectrum of services across business advisory, program management, solution delivery and implementation, and performance improvements and was recognized as the Advisory Firm of the Year 2010 by Energy Risk Magazine. Structure relies on deep industry expertise and proven methodologies to deliver projects across Smart Grid/Distribution Operations/Distribution Automation, SCADA & Energy Management Systems, Energy Trading & Risk Management, and Competitive Energy Market Solutions. For more information, visit www. th es truc ture gi-o up. coni . RECEIVED DIGEST IF -1111, y. TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON September 7, 2010 Peggy Curran Town Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA Re: Request for Information Dear Ms. Curren: Marin County Civil Grand jury Via E-Mail and U.S. Postal Service The Finance Committee of the Marin County Civil Grand Jury has recently begun its term and is diligently working to gather information that will enable us to fulfill our mission to examine local government. We are requesting information on disability retirement pensions from the Town of Tiburon, as set forth in Attachment A. We recognize that some of the information may not be available in the exact form requested. Please use your best efforts to provide the information that most closely approximates our request. We realize that there are many demands on the time of you and your staff, so in an effort to conserve paper as well as your staff time, we ask that the requested documents be provided to us in electronic form. Depending on the file size, you may either email the information to us (grand jury&co.marin.ca.us - Subject: "Finance Information Request") or mail/deliver it to us as a data file (CD-R). 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 275, San Rafael, CA 94903 Tel: 415-499-6132 We request that this information be provided to us by no later than September 29, 2010. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at Qrandjury(a,co.marin.ca.us. Sincerely, Monica Heilman Foreperson Pro Tern Marin County Civil Grand Jury Attachment 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 275, San Rafael, CA 94903 Tel: 415-499-6132 I 4 AMW ~'f ciriit County CIviI G r i n d t:!I'1, Attachment A Disability Retirement Pensions Please provide a write able copy of documents for each of the fiscal years beginning July 1, 2000 through and including July 1, 2010, segregated between general and safety employees, that identify the following: 1.1. The total number of retirements for which pensions, both disability and non-disability, are paid; 1.2. The total number of claims and total costs incurred for disability retirement pensions, segregated between service and non-service related disabilities; 1.3. The employer contribution percentage rate for disability retirement pensions 1.4. For individual employees receiving a disability pension, please identify: 1.4.1. The cause and nature of injury claimed, indicating whether the injury was service or non-service related 1.4.2. The date on which the disability occurred; 1.4.3. The date on which the disability retirement pension became effective; 1.4.4. The compensation awarded; 1.4.5. The job classification held by the employee at the time of retirement; 1.4.6. The age of the employee; 1.4.7. The number of years of service at the time of retirement 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 275, San Rafael, CA 94903 Tel: 415-499-6132 April Hopkins Rox 89 Sugarloaf Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 (415) 435-6779 - Telephone Home arox@mofoxom - E-mail August 17, 2010 Mr. George Dailey Building Inspector Town of Tiburon Building Division 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 1830 Lagoon View Drive, Tiburon, CA (the "Property"): Residential Building Resale Inspection Dear George: DIG-EST I wish to thank you for your assistance with the recent Resale Inspection that you handled for the above referenced Property. Although the process presented some challenges and introduced me to some unfamiliar rules, you were the consummate professional during each visit to, and evaluation of, the Property. I appreciated your willingness to discuss the issues with my contractor, as well as provide suggestions to him regarding how to address the items requiring attention. In my opinion, the Town of Tiburon is fortunate to have you on the staff of the Building Division, and as a resident of Tiburon, I am grateful that you are representing the "Down in the application of its building codes and requirements. Thank you, again, for your assistance. Sincerely, §IU4 L. 4z R G April flopkins' /cc: Mr. Fred Lustenberger, Building Official, Town of Tiburon Building Division C 0 Co O O r O N N I~ r cD co M f- O Q r O N LO m 00 N N r- O N rn U W 0 z 0 T 0 ~ U N p J a ~ W w F- co D o 00 CV r LO O 1` ~F N M LLW D Q O N O O 04 W~/ w ~ r O d d N O O N Z C) W W z O O O N O ~ r- CA a C) W Q O O V O LO LO c O c1r) N Li. J p Q O O N N M T- O N a Q N O 07 N r- M W O T- O T- T- N 00 O r- LL z Q O N O M O M T- O N w CL L w z t- Q n a Q O z E H w a z t? ~ g w w F- N Z Q Q > a U w Q W > w U. F- U) J w a Q U) ~0 L Ov, ,ten TOWN OF TIBURON OFFICE OF DESIGN REVIEW MONTHLY REPORT AUGUST 2010 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPLICATIONS: NUMBER SUBMITTED 2009 ■ NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES 1 1 ■ MAJOR ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS 0 1 ■ MINOR ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS 1 5 ■ (not eligible for Staff Review) ■ SIGN PERMITS 4 0 ■ TREE PERMITS 4 4 ■ VARIANCE REQUESTS 2 7 ■ FAR EXCEPTIONS REQUESTS 0 4 ■ EXTENSION OF TIME 0 0 STAFF REVIEW APPLICATIONS: Review of minor exterior alterations and additions of less than 500 square feet. 16 11 APPEALS OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS TO TOWN COUNCIL 0 0 REPORT PREPARED BY: Connie Cashman, Planning Secretary DATE OF REPORT: September 8, 2010 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NO. 1001 August 11, 2010 Regular Meeting Town of Tiburon Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Vice-Chair Frymier called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Present: Vice-Chair Frymier, Commissioners Corcoran and Tollini Absent: Chair Kunzweiler, Commissioner Doyle Staff Present: Planning Manager Watrous, Town Attorney Danforth, Director of Community Development Anderson (8:15), Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Levison ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING: None ELECTION OF OFFICERS: ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Tollini) to elect Commissioner Fryinier as Chair. Motion carried: 3-0. ACTION: It was M/S (Frymier/Tollini) to elect Commissioner Corcoran as Vice-Chair. Motion carried: 3-0. MINUTES: 2. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of July 14, 2010 Commissioner Tollini requested the following corrections to the minutes: • Page 4, 1St paragraph, 4th line - change "acknowledge" to "acknowledged" • Page 5, 1St paragraph, 2" d line - "less than significant" ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Tollini) to approve the minutes of July 14, 2010, as amended. Motion carried: 3-0. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 1 I. 2010 MINUTES NO. 1001 PAGE 1 PUBLIC MEETING 1. TRESTLE GLEN CIRCLE CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN; File #40901; Trestle Glen Boulevard between Tiburon Boulevard and upper Juno Road; Conceptual Master Plan to Create Four Building Sites on a 14.46 Acre Parcel; Trestle Glen Terrace, LLC, Owner; IPA, Inc., Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 039-061-91 Planning Manager Watrous presented the staff report, stating the owner of this vacant 14.46 acre parcel has submitted an application for a Conceptual Master Plan review of proposal to divide this vacant parcel into four lots. He provided a brief background of the site, including review of a previous Precise Development Plan for the site by the Planning Commission in 2000 and an application submitted by the current property owner in 2008 for a Precise Development Plan to subdivide the property into three lots, with two lots accessed from Silverado Drive and the third from Trestle Glen Boulevard. Due to the potential controversy regarding this and other site planning issues, Staff recommended that the applicant withdraw the Precise Development Plan application and instead submit for a Conceptual Master Plan review. The Conceptual Master Plan was subsequently submitted with the four-lot subdivision, with two accessed from Silverado and two from Trestle Glen Boulevard. Mr. Watrous summarized the development parameters for each of the four proposed lots. He noted that the conceptual plans for the houses on all four lots are probably representative of the type of construction that would be expected for each lot, given the building envelope constraints and house sizes proposed. Mr. Watrous discussed the planning issues have been raised by the design of the proposed project, including traffic and access issues for both Silverado Drive and Trestle Glen Boulevard, issues of neighborhood compatibility, the location of a significant ridgeline on the site, visibility of the proposed homes and the amount of grading needed for the proj ect. Mr. Watrous stated that no formal action on the proposed Conceptual Master Plan was required from the Commission that evening, but the Commission was expected to provide input to the applicant regarding the merits of the conceptual project design, including vehicular access from Trestle Glen Boulevard, Silverado Drive, or both; appropriate number and general location of homes on the site; appropriate floor area limits and envelope sizes for homes; avoidance of, or enhanced setbacks from, the significant ridgeline on the site; and adequacy of proposed open space. Mr. Watrous stated that Town Staff feels that a more appropriate project design would include only one access point from Trestle Glen Boulevard with three homes that are closer in size to those approved for Tiburon Court. He said that this project design would be consistent with the development pattern on this side of Trestle Glen Boulevard, would lessen the visual impacts of the currently proposed larger home, and leave much of the upper portion of the property as visual open space. He stated that the single access point from Trestle Glen Boulevard would eliminate traffic through Silverado Drive and Little Reed Heights neighborhood and would avoid any additional strain on the intersection of Stewart Drive and Tiburon Boulevard. He added that Staff believes that a three-lot project with smaller homes and Trestle Glen Boulevard access would be most compatible with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- AUGUST 11. 2010 MINUTES NO. 1001 PAGE 2 Vice-Chair Corcoran asked if the Town has the same governance over private roadways as it does public and if the Town Engineer would provide an assessment in terms of safety and visibility. Mr. Watrous stated that private roadways are evaluated in the same manner as public and must meet the same safety standards and evaluations; much of that would occur through the CEQA process and traffic evaluation for any design. He noted that in its conceptual form, the design has not yet been evaluated to that extent. Vice-Chair Corcoran inquired about the size of secondary building envelopes for the Tiburon Court project. Mr. Watrous could not specifically confirm size, but said that they were substantially smaller than what is proposed here. Vice-Chair Corcoran asked how this project would proceed if not all of the identified issues were resolved at this time. Mr. Watrous said that it would be the applicant's option to hold another hearing on the Conceptual Master Plan in front of the Town Council, but the intent of this process is to guide them in preparing an acceptable Precise Development Plan application. Art Giovara, owner, reviewed his family's history and stated that he purchased this property three years ago and intends to live in the home on Lot 3. He said that the two parcels along Trestle Glen Boulevard were at one time zoned for sixty-eight homes and are now zoned for approximately eight. He said that he had been working on this project for nearly three years, met with the Planning Commission and staff numerous times, met with the neighbors and hosted a community meeting on the project. He reviewed the letters received from the public and agreed that access from Juno Road is dangerous, but he noted that visibility from the proposed access point is better than from the other side of the road. He stated that traffic from two additional homes would not significantly exacerbate the traffic situation. He acknowledged privacy concerns and said that he had made considerable changes to the design in order to minimize those impacts. He stated that the home on Lot 3, while large, would be set back approximately 150 feet from the street. He also noted that concerns over light spillage from the proposed tennis courts were unfounded, as he had no intent of installing lighting there, as were concerns about noise emanating from pool parties, as only a lap pool was proposed. To concerns regarding views, Mr. Giovara stated that the top portion of the hill would be left alone. He acknowledged concerns regarding the construction phase of the project and noted that recent brush clearing on the site with large equipment did not seem to present any significant inconvenience to any surrounding neighborhoods. He stated that he did not intend to move any dirt offsite, meaning that heavy equipment travelling through the neighborhood would be kept to minimum, and that he envisioned limiting construction access to Trestle Glen Boulevard only. Mr. Giovara objected to a letter submitted by a planning consultant that he said appeared to have been partially written by Mr. White, a property owner with whom he is engaged in a legal dispute. He questioned the consultant's statement that Silverado Drive is substandard and its measured width, and objected to the letter on the grounds that it was misleading in its information and was not signed by the all of its authors. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 11. 2010 MINUTES NO. 1001 PAGE 3 Mr. Giovara noted that his legal access to Silverado Drive has been questioned by many and he stressed that he was not trying to force any property owners into granting him something he was not entitled to. He stated that this road easement is mentioned in the subdivision map and ultimately the courts would need to decide the issue. Scott Hochstrasser, enviromnental planning consultant for the applicant, reviewed the site's zoning history. He said that 73% of the cut-and fill grading for the proposed project would be for landslide repair required by the Town's policies. He said that the remaining grading for the project clearly represented an effort to minimize grading. In terms of ridgeline setback, he noted that the homes along Stewart Drive and Redding Court above the site are clearly on top of the ridge but this project would set homes 75 feet or more from the ridgeline. He said that they are open to increasing the setback for the building envelopes, if needed. He stated that the plan was consistent with General Plan policies. He was involved in the Tiburon Court project which was ultimately approved for three homes with large basements, essentially totaling up to 5,900 square feet of livable space in each home. He said that this decision signaled to developers that the Town wants larger homes on larger lots and two of the four homes proposed as part of this project would be exactly in line with what was approved for the property next door. He conceded that the home on Lot 3 might be inordinately large and could be considered an estate lot, although he noted there is no zoning definition for that term. Mr. Hochstrasser stated that the development had been specifically clustered to extend from the existing neighborhood approved for Tiburon Court. He said that Lot 4 would be situated entirely on a slide area and the home's foundation would actually become a stability element of that slide repair. He stated that the home on Lot 3 would not loom over the Belveron neighborhood, noting that the elevation changes and setback from the street. He concurred with Mr. Giovara that certain public comments were misinformation and asked that the Commission not prejudice its views of the project based on the question of legal access at Silverado Drive. He also noted that Mr. Giovara had received a letter from the neighbors' attorney stating that the purchase of an easement there may well be negotiable. He stated that many letters attempt to pick this proposal apart piece by piece, but he said that that could be done with nearly every approved project in Town. He stated that the Commission's responsibility for each project was to strike a balance between the developer's objectives and the goals and policies of the Town's General Plan and zoning regulations. Miles Berger, architect, stated that this plan was developed to feather new development into existing neighborhoods and he demonstrated this would be accomplished on the plans. He discussed the conceptual home designs and how the homes would complement the existing terrain and neighborhoods. Chair Frymier asked Mr. Berger to discuss the reason for the differences in architectural styles for the proposed homes. Mr. Berger said visibility from the upper to lower homes and vice versa ,is limited and therefore continuity between the two portions of the site was not necessary. He said that the similarity in home design of Point Tiburon was part of what makes that project look so massive. His idea was to break up this continuity, thereby reducing the apparent visual mass. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 11. 2010 MINUTES NO. 1001 PAGE 4 Chair Frymier noted that the proposed garages would be larger than the average size in Tiburon, particularly the 2,100 square foot garage for Lot 3. Mr. Berger hoped that the proposed setbacks would limit the visibility of the garages to a significant extent. He explained that Mr. Giovara's plan was to house agricultural equipment, wine barrels, etc. in the garage and not an inordinate number of vehicles. He also said that this was not a critical feature in terms of design and admitted that regardless of what is discussed all homes would eventually be subject to the normal constraints of the design review process. Chair Frymier asked for more information about grading and fill, particularly, why so much soil would be relocated onto Lot 3 and how much this would increase the elevation of the house on that lot. Kevin Maas, civil engineer with Adobe Associates, Inc., explained that the proposed home would have a multi-level design, with some portions below the natural grade and others above grade. He said that the homes would be excavated into the hillside to a fair extent in order to construct a roadway leading to the upper two lots while still minimizing retaining walls. He stated that this excavation would create a significant amount of loose dirt and, rather than hauling it through town, the thought was to place that material on Lot 3. He stated that the auto court on the northern end would be approximately eighteen feet above natural grade. Chair Frymier thanked the public for their correspondence and them that the Commission had read all comments submitted to date, reviewed the plans, visited the site from several vantage points, and viewed the site from different points in town. She asked that tonight's comments be limited to new information rather than what has already been submitted. She reminded the public that the Commission's role is to provide a recommendation that will establish a foundation for any subsequent Precise Development Plan that may or may not come forward. She reviewed the key areas of focus as stated by staff, asked that comments address these points specifically, and opened the hearing to public comment. Becky Pringle said that in an effort to establish an efficient format for this evening, neighbors had agreed on one official representative each from the neighborhoods of Reed Heights, Belveron Gardens, and Trestle Glen Terrace. Jan Vazquez, planning consultant, stated that she represents property owners of Silverado and Comstock Drives, as well as the neighborhoods of Little Reed Heights and Tiburon Knolls, and she had authored the letter referenced by Mr. Giovara. She provided the Commission with a letter from the title company, which she said substantiated Mr. White's claims regarding access from Silverado Drive. She stated that the General Plan Land Use element which described this particular property says that it has poor access, steep slopes, a significant ridgeline, and high visibility, all of which combine to make achievement of the maximum density unlikely. Of these constraints, she said that the most difficult one for the applicant to address and make an argument for General Plan consistency relates to slopes, particularly the policy that strongly discourages development on slopes exceeding 40%, which are found on Lots 1 and 2. She -questioned whether the Commission would be able to make a finding of General Plan consistency and approve a Precise Development Plan with this design, and noted that the applicant's own description of the property acknowledged that the plan cannot comply with the Town's slope policy. She noted that the General Plan includes policies that state that open space is highly valued and its preservation should be given the highest priority. Viewed from TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 11. 2010 MINUTES NO. 1001 PAGE 5 eastbound on Tiburon Boulevard, she said that the story poles are very evident and give the impression of continuous development across the hillside. She said that the portion of land to be dedicated as open space is not the most visible portion of the property. David Wood cited significant drainage issues emanating from underground springs on the hillside behind his property and draining down to Trestle Glen Terrace. He said that Trestle Glen Terrace has experienced major issues with those springs undermining the condition of foe road, which is private and must be maintained at'the expense of the homeowners. He said that the proposed home on Lot 1 would significantly and negatively affect drainage further, advised that piped-in storm drains would be necessary for the project, and he asked what sort of bond the developer intended to secure to ensure against additional damage. He stated that he owns a landscape easement that blocks Mr. Giovara's access from Comstock Drive, which was sold specifically to assure that there would be no nearby development or access from any of the cul- de-sacs. He said that he was not opposed to development of the site but wanted to see it done in a manner that would blend in with the surrounding neighborhoods and does not put homeowners at risk. He concurred with the recommendation of the Staff report, which identified three homes accessed from Trestle Glen Boulevard as the preferred alternative. Al McGee stated that this project could affect nearly 10% of the Town's population. He said he spoke with Mr. Giovara several years ago regarding the project and characterized him as unfamiliar with land use and development in Marin County. He said that he offered Mr. Giovara several suggestions at that time, which he had not opted to pursue. In early 2007, Mr. Magee distributed a survey to homeowners on Silverado Drive and not one single response supported the plan proposed here. He concurred with the Staff recommendation and said that any development here should be moderate in scale and accessed from Trestle Glen Boulevard only. John Kern said that he was the last civil engineer to perform work on Silverado Drive, and that by all standards this is a substandard road. He stated that during the undergrounding of utilities on Silverado Drive, the Town Manager advised him to authorize the placement of a PG&E transformer in its current location at the end of Silverado Drive because the Town had no plans to ever punch that road through. He said that Silverado Drive has a 14% grade, increasing nearly 200 vertical feet in only three blocks. He said that the road is so narrow that with vehicles parked against the curb on either side, the center travel way is limited to less than eight feet in width and does not accommodate larger vehicles or emergency access. He said that the Stewart Drive/Tiburon Boulevard intersection is the worst in town and cautioned against adding more traffic to this intersection. Karen Halsey said that this proposal has united the efforts of Belveron East, Tiburon Knolls, and Reed Heights. She said that each neighborhood would like to see the ridgeline preserved and believes that the property can be responsibly developed with a single access point from Trestle Glen Boulevard. She said that the community had met with the applicant to discuss their concerns, but many feel that those concerns have not been addressed by this proposal. She was concerned that the applicant might not develop the remaining lots beyond their infrastructure and pads, and that the situation could mirror that of a parcel in Belvedere where the property was destroyed but never developed. She requested a project with singular access off Trestle Glen Boulevard that would include safety improvements for the entire neighborhood. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES-AUGUST 11. 2010 MINUTES NO. 1001 PAGE 6 Enrique Sotomayor disagreed with the applicant's contention that a temporary construction road to access building pads for Lots 1 and 2 would alleviate construction impacts on neighbors due to the connection of utilities through Comstock Drive. He concurred with the Staff recommendation regarding access from Trestle Glen Boulevard, stating that the development as designed would create significant impacts to the residents on Silverado Drive for years to come. Richard Petrick said that he approached Larkspur's former Planning Director, Jan Vazquez, because he felt the Commission was owed someone who could speak at their own level. He said that he and Alan White organized the community, raising money as a group to hire Ms. Vazquez to prepare her argument. He said that he did not believe Mr. Giovara is a part of the neighborhood and had never seen anyone polarize a community so quickly. Chair Frymier reiterated the key points that Staff had identified for tonight's discussion and asked the public to limit comments to those specific issues. Margot Geitheim discussed traffic safety issues of Trestle Glen Boulevard. She said that the proposed development would turn Belveron East into a ghetto by essentially blocking the Juno Road exit. She said that neighborhood property owners deserve better in terms of traffic and safety. Margarita Perry said that she has lived on Silverado Drive since 1998 and in that time, has witnessed many major near misses at the blind curve coming up the hill. She said that drainage and landslide issues are the primary concerns when considering the steep slope of Lots 1 and 2. She said that she has spent an exceptional amount of money on hydrologists over the last two years in an attempt to deal with drainage issues emanating from an eroded storm drain on her property and she asked who would deal with the drainage and other issues if the owner only builds the house on Lot 3. She said that landslides are well documented all through the hills of Silverado Drive and the hillside on the site will not be able to contain the runoff from this development. She strongly agreed that development access should be limited to Trestle Glen Boulevard and that homes should be restricted to the lower portion of the lot where there are fewer drainage issues. James Renney read excerpts of comments provided by several of his neighbors. He noted that in contrast to Trestle Glen Boulevard, Silverado Drive is a narrow, blind-curve road that is often impassible for larger vehicles. He said that this situation has worsened as the neighborhood has grown and would only be compounded by traffic from new development. He said that he too is concerned with neighborhood safety and that access from Trestle Glen Boulevard was clearly the safer and preferred alternative. Leal Buck invited the Commission to view the impacts indicated by the story poles for Lot 1 from her living room. She said that with an existing 40% grade behind her home, an additional 30 vertical feet of building would dominate her environment. She also cited drainage issues as a significant concern. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 11. 2010 MINUTES NO. 1001 PAGE 7 Linda Fong said that she and her neighbors feel that the proposed access through Silverado is inappropriate and fiaught with logistical issues. She said that she had heard no opposition to access from Trestle Glen Boulevard and concurred with the Staff recommendation. Alan White said that he could not support this project and instead supported the Staff recommendation. He said that while the question of legal access from Silverado Drive is something for the court to decide and cited-the opinions of a title company regarding t1Te easement. He said that the proposed home sizes were massive and not in conformance with the surrounding neighborhood as a whole, and as a result the project would not be fair to the community. He said that use of the proposed construction road was unclear and, if meant to reduce traffic, he asked why it would be removed following the completion of Lots 1 and 2. He felt that this development attempts to maximize revenue at the expense of neighboring homes and the Town itself. He believed that project design recommended by Staff would be advantageous to both the developer and the community. Randy Greenberg said that the maximum density (four homes at this site) is not an entitlement and is almost never achieved on slopes over 40% or properties with significant ridgelines and visual prominence. She stated that neighborhood compatibility regarding house sizes is Town policy, not wishful thinking. She said that the proposed building envelopes are too large, which is inconsistent with the intent of envelopes to limit the areas of development on a lot. She said that an important aspect of open space is its visual quality and that while some existing homes are situated on ridgelines, their development prior to the implementation of these policies does mean that the policies should be abandoned for present development. She stated that the maximum density is not feasible at this site, the undeveloped ridgeline should be protected, and the applicants should return with smaller building envelopes for each lot. Marti Andrews felt that Mr. Giovara did not listen to the neighbors' concerns at the July 8th meeting. She said that the amount of grading alone would suggest that the proposed plan was not appropriate for this site. She voiced support for a project with one or two moderately sized homes with access from Trestle Glen Boulevard and asked that their placement and design respect neighbors and protect the ridgeline. Becky Pringle said that the primary areas of concern were the access off Silverado Drive and, home size relative to the surrounding area. She said that the conceptual house designs provided by the applicant did not relate to what neighbors would see from their own property. She supported the Staff recommendation for fewer and smaller homes. Mr. Hochstrasser stated that he listened carefully to all comments and it seemed clear that the Staff recommendation was the overriding preference. He asked the Commission to consider under what conditions it would approve a project for three homes, with two as proposed and the third reduced in size. He also asked if the applicant submitted a plan for two homes on estate- type lots what level of environmental review would be required. Commissioner Tollini asked the applicant's engineer to review the proposed drainage plan. Mr. Maas said that the overall intent is to utilize current drainage patterns and described the conceptual drainage improvements for the project. He said that the intent would be to utilize best TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 11. 2010 MINUTES NO. 1001 PAGE 8 practices throughout the site, which could include cisterns for water collection and reuse as well as methods to detain the downward flow rate, and that these design characteristics have the potential to reduce runoff to less than current levels. Commissioner Tollini requested an overview of the building process and timeline. Mr. Giovara confirmed that it was his intent to build the house on Lot 3 and to sell the remaining lots with building pads in place. Given the current-.economic climate, he said that it was difficult-to accurately predict when any of the homes would be built. Mr. Berger clarified that as part of the development plan, access roads to each site would be created but the building sites would be left in their natural state with no building pad. He noted that the required slide repair and drainage improvements would be made to each site in addition to the road improvements. He said that there was no specific timetable to construct the homes. Chair Frymier closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tollini said that she supports the idea of a three-lot development with Lots 1 and 2 brought onto the lower portion of the site. She said that she could possibly support a project with four smaller homes depending on their placement or a project with two larger estate-style homes. She suggested an additional option, which would relocate Lot 2 to Lot A, to be accessed from Silverado Drive or ideally from Trestle Glen Boulevard. She felt that this alignment would make the upper two sites less visibly prominent. Regarding traffic, she cautioned against the "raise the drawbridge" approach and said that she did not believe that adding access to two homes from Silverado Drive would materially exacerbate the existing conditions on that street. However, she preferred to see access located further down the hill, as recommended by Staff as the Stewart Drive intersection with Tiburon Boulevard is tricky and Silverado Drive is somewhat narrow. She said that would like to see traffic improvements to the area, including a stop sign at the intersection, a bicycle lane, and sidewalk that would support the connectivity to Tiburon Boulevard. She found it reasonable to compare proposed home sizes to the Tiburon Court project and said that she had no issue with basement or subterranean area, and aboveground, a floor area of 4,300 square feet should be a guideline. She said that she could conceivably support a three- lot design with one slightly larger home that would be well placed, tastefully designed and dug into the hillside. Her overriding impression at present was the visual prominence of Lots 1 and 2 on the ridgeline. She stated that she agreed in general with the Staff recommendation. Vice-Chair Corcoran concurred with much of Commissioner Tollini's comments and said that there seemed to be considerable consensus amongst neighbors. He said that a three-home design would be appropriate, with perhaps two homes located on Lot 3 and one on Lot 4. He said that the size of the homes on Tiburon Court would be a good benchmark, and that the size of the house proposed for Lot 3 in particular was excessive in this area. He believed that reducing the home sizes would solve a good portion of the problems associated with slope and grading. He felt there was much to be said for Mr. Hochstrasser's and Mr. Berger's reputation in working with difficult developments such as this and believed that they could work with the applicant to develop a design that meets everyone's needs. He thought that Juno Road was the appropriate access point to the site, with a wider opening there and perhaps a turnout. He felt that it was important to restrict the size of the secondary building envelopes, particularly on Lot 3, and to TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 11, 2010 MINUTES NO. 1001 PAGE 9 prepare a landscape plan that would reassure neighbors the homes would not have a looming visual effect. He said that he would like to see all development done closer to street level with Trestle Glen Boulevard and would prefer no development at all on the area of Lots I and 2. Chair Frymier concurred with her fellow Commissioners and supported the Staff recommendation for three homes on Lots 3 and 4 combined and eliminating development on the area of Lots I and 2. She said that she was--open to other alternative project designs, but. generally believed the location of the site would be best served by three homes on the lower portion. She did not think that either one or two estate lots would be appropriate for this property. She voiced concerns regarding the temporary road and said that she would like a more definitive construction schedule and specific recommendations on restoration of the site following its removal. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. CATHY FRYMIER, CHAIR TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DANIEL WATROUS, SECRETARY TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 11. 2010 MINUTES NO. 1001 PAGE 10 9. MINUTES #13 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 2010 s The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Vice Chair Kricensky. A. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chairman Kricensky, Boardmembers Emberson & Weller Absent: Chairman Tollim, Boardmember Chong Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING - None D. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. 55 MT. TIBURON ROAD: File No. 710062; Zach and Annette Faidi, Owners; Walter and Betsy Menzel, Appellants; Adoption of Resolution Denying Appeal of Planning Staffs decision to approve a Site Plan and Architectural Review for application for construction of a six foot high (6') deer fence Planning Manager Watrous advised that unless the Board has questions or comments on the resolution itself, Staff would recommend adoption of the draft resolution at this time. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Weller) to adopt the Resolution Denying Appeal of Planning Staff s decision to approve a Site Plan and Architectural Review for application for construction of a six foot high (6') deer fence. Vote: 3-0. Boardmember Weller noted for the record that the Town received a late mail item from the appellant, which reiterates the points made in their presentation, and in his view did not provide new information sufficient to change the Board's position. E. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 2. 47 UPPER NORTH TERRACE: File No. 21013; John Harrington and Ida Baugh, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to construct 187 square feet of additions to expand the existing living and dining rooms of the house. The additions would extend to within 14 feet, 6 inches of the front property line in lieu of the minimum 30 foot front yard setback TIBURON D.R.B MINUTES #14 b/19/10 for this property. The additions would cover 28.9% of the site, in lieu of the maximum 15.0% lot coverage for this property. The applicant desires to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage, on property located at 47 Upper North Terrace. The proposal would expand the existing living room and dining rooms toward the front of the house. An existing above-ground deck to the rear of the house would be expanded to the side. The roofline above the main level of the house would be modified to have a flatter pitch without increasing the ridgeline height. A 6-foot tall wall would surround a patio area in front of the house. Miles Berger, architect, said they agree with the Staff recommendation. He briefly reviewed the project, stressing that the ridgeline would not encroach on the view of residents behind the subject property. He said that the variances requested were necessary due to the unusual shape of the site and a result of attempts to minimize vertical additions. He stated that the Cassou family had asked that they refrain from installing the metal chimney cap and the applicant has agreed to simply install the required spark arrestor on the chimney instead. He noted another modification to the submitted plans that involves slight relocation and reconfiguration of a proposed skylight. Vice-Chair Kricensky opened the hearing. April Cassou stated that she lives directly opposite and above the subject site. She thanked Mr. Berger for his complete cooperation and said that her family was more than satisfied with the proj ect. Vice-Chair Kricensky inquired about roofing material. Mr. Berger stated that two options have been called out: 1) a dark metal roof for the upward angled portion, or 2) a composition roof identical to existing roofing material. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Emberson said that she visited the site and believed this to be a wonderful way to spruce up a somewhat dated home. Her only concern was the spark arrester but she was satisfied with the applicant's amendment. She stated a preference for the metal roof, although she said that she would be happy to support the project with either roof material. Boardmember Weller concurred, adding that the findings could be made to support the requested variances. He said that he visited the site as well and saw no reason not to support the project. Vice-Chair Kricensky concurred. He said that he visited the site and did not believe that the requested variances would anyone. He commended Mr. Berger and the applicants for working so closely with neighbors to make this happen in such a compatible manner. ACTION: It was M/S (Well er/Emb erson) to find that the request for 47 Upper North Terrace is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approved the application subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 3-0. TIBURON D.R.B MINUTES #14 8/19/10 F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #12 OF THE AUGUST 5, 2010 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING ACTION: It was M/S (Weller/Emberson) to approve the minutes of the August 5, 2010 meeting as written. Vote: 3-0. E. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 3. 490 RIDGE ROAD: File No. 21015; Stephen and Honey Schwartz, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new spa and landscape improvements, with a variance for reduced side yard setback. The new spa would have a reduced side yard setback of 3 feet, 6 inches in lieu of the minimum 15 feet. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a spa and landscape improvements on a site currently developed with a two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 490 Ridge Road. The spa would be situated along the northeastern (left) side of the property. A 6 foot tall wood and wire vine trellis would extend along the side property line in the area of the spa. A 6 foot tall wooden fence would extend along the front property line, with a pedestrian gate and entry columns in the middle. A new at-grade wood deck would extend to the rear of the house. Several 4 foot tall retaining walls would be used to the rear of the deck to create terraced spaces. The spa would be situated within 3 feet, 6 inches of the northeastern side property line. Jim Bradanini, landscape architect, said that the new owners are requesting a variance to the side yard setback as it relates to a proposed spa. He said that the desire was to renovate the existing garden area by placing a new spa along the edge of the side property line to leave ample space for circulating through the property's outdoor space. He said that they spoke with the adjacent neighbor at 500 Ridge Road to discuss the project, at which time the neighbor indicated his full support. He reviewed the proposed landscape improvements and diagrams and said that they feel this to be a significant enhancement over the previous design, despite the required variance. There were no public comments. Boardmember Emberson referred to the Staff report and inquired after alternative locations on the site for the spa that would not encroach on existing setbacks. She said that she visited the site and did not personally envision another obvious location. Planning Manager Watrous said that no specific locations have been identified, although there may be other general options. He noted that relocation of the spa could create some of the pedestrian circulation problems that the applicant has referred to. Vice-Chair Kricensky said that it seemed that the area between the two fences would be sort of a "no man's land." Mr. Bradanini said that he anticipated a hedgerow of shrubs would fill that corridor. He noted that the wire deer fence would be well shrouded by shrubbery, and that there would be a vine trellis to provide vertical layers of color and greenery along the property line. TIBURON D.R.B MINUTES #14 3 8/19/10 Vice-Chair Kricensky said in visiting the site, it was clear that there are limited options for placement of the spa without breaking up any kind of area for outdoor entertainment. He asked if the neighbor was aware of the combination of the deer fence and 10 foot tall trellis. Mr. Bradanini said that he showed the neighbor these plans, although was not certain that they understand the subtlety of the vines, hedgerow and planting. He did not anticipate the 10 foot vine trellis to be an obvious visual element. He understood that the neighbors have no views in that direction and are primarily interested ire- increased screening from the spa. Planning-Manager Watrous referred to Attachment 3, a letter from Mr. Dwyer, the adjacent neighbor, which indicates that he looked at both sheets L-1 and L-2 and supported the project. Noted Present: Boardmember Chong joined the meeting and was noted present. Boardmember Emberson reiterated that she did not believe there to be any other reasonable location for the spa. She supported the proposed setback and said she believed all parties would benefit from additional screening. She stated that the lack of a credible alternate location for the spa would create an unnecessary hardship for the applicant. Boardmember Weller concurred. He said that Staff raised a legitimate point regarding the findings, but he was satisfied that the proposed location was the only reasonable and functional location for the spa, which supported the finding of a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship for the applicant. He added that the previous pool was in this location and defined the way the space on this property has been used and the spa would not change the status quo. Boardmember Chong said that he visited the site. He said that he did not necessarily believe that new features should be constructed in the same location as something else that was removed, but he reached the conclusion that placing the spa anywhere else would be impractical. He said that he also could make the findings for practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. Vice-Chair Kricensky said he also tried to identify alternative locations for the spa and, given that the applicant had no other real outdoor entertaining space, this was the logical site. He believed that the spa have fewer noise impacts than the pool. He reiterated how close the two homes are and said that the proposed landscaping and trellis would be preferable to looking at one's neighbors. He said that moving the spa out of the setback would likely dominate the entire space. He believed that the design would be an overall improvement for the applicant and neighbors and offered his support for the project. ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Emberson) that the request for 490 Ridge Road is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approved the project subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4-0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B MINUTES #14 8/19/10 /D TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall Action Minutes - Regular Meeting Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard September 2, 2010 Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M. ACTION MINUTES # 14 y ~ TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:00 PM Present: Vice Chairman Kricensky, Boardmembers Emberson & Weller Absent: Chairman Chong and Boardmember Tollini Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous and Minutes Clerk Levison OLD BUSINESS 1. 2312 SPANISH TRAIL: File No. 710021; Bill and Joy Norris, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a detached two-family dwelling, with a detached two-family exception. The applicants propose to construct a 1,180 square foot detached dwelling below the existing house on the site. APN: 059-201-32 Continued to October 7, 2010 2. 680 HAWTHORNE DRIVE: File No. 709044; Colleen Mahoney, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling. The applicants propose to construct a 1,072 square foot second story addition to add a larger master bedroom suite, two bedrooms, one bathroom, a laundry room, and a guest suite for the existing dwelling. Four new skylights would be installed. APN: 055-191-18 Continued to October 7, 2010 NEW BUSINESS 3. 1801 MAR WEST STREET: File No. 710101; Ron Sires, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling with a floor area exception. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing dwelling and reconstruct a new dwelling, as well as remodel the existing detached garage and guest house. The proposed floor area is 3,758 square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio of 3,085 square feet for this property by 673 square feet. APN 059-061-21 Approved 3-0 MTNT ITF.C 4 Regular Meeting of August 19, 2010 Approved 3-0 ADJOURNMENT At 7:45 PM Action Minutes #14 9/21110 Design Review Board Meeting Page 1 TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 ACTION MINUTES Action Minutes - Regular Meeting Tiburon Planning Commission September 8, 2010 - 7:30 PM TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:30 PM Present: Chairman Frymier, Commissioner Doyle, Commissioner Kunzweiler, Commissioner Tollini Absent: Vice Chair Corcoran, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There Were None r Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Planning Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Planning Commission agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Testimony regarding matters not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record. COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING Commission and Committee Reports Director" s Report NEW BUSINESS 1. 1501 AND 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD: DETERMINE WHETHER RECIRCULATION IS REQUIRED FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) FOR THE BELVEDERE-TIBURON PUBLIC LIBRARY EXPANSION PROJECT; FILE #S GPA 2008-02, MCA 2008-14,40801, AND 30804;Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency and Town of Tiburon, Owners; Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency, Applicant; Assessor Parcel Numbers 058-171- 921 931 94 and a portion of 058-171-62 [SA] No Recirculation Required 4-0 Tiburon Planning Commission Action Minutes September 8, 2010 Page 1 MINUTES 2. PLANNNG COMMISSION MINUTES -Regular Meeting of August 11, 2010 Approved as Amended 3-0-I (Commissioner Kunzweiler Abstained) ADJOURNMENT At 7: 47 PM Tiburon Planning Commission Agenda September 8, 2010 Page 2 /4;* TOWN OF TIBURON Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard September 16, 2010 Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M. A 4j _AGENDA TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ~ CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chairman Tollini, Vice Chairman Kricensky, Boardmembers Chong, Emberson & Weller ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Design Review Board on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Design Review Board is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Design Review Board agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Any communications regarding an item not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record for that item. STAFF BRIEFING (if any) NEW BUSINESS 1. 96 SUGARLOAF DRIVE; File No. 21016; Capucine & Andrew Hoybach, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of an addition to an existing single-family dwelling, with a variance for reduced side yard setback. The applicants propose to construct a 26 square foot addition to the master bedroom to create a larger bathroom area. As the minimum side yard setback in the RO-2 zone is fifteen feet (15'), a variance is required in order to construct the addition within the side yard setback a distance of one foot (1'), for a reduced side yard setback of fourteen feet (14'). APN: 05 8-281-13 [LT] Continued to October 7, 2010 2. 130 STEWART DRIVE; File No. 710103; Susan Beecroft, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of an addition to an existing single-family dwelling. The applicant proposes to remodel the existing dwelling, and convert 700 square feet of crawlspace at the lower level into floor area. APN: 055-091-14 [LT] MINUTES 3. Regular Meeting of September 2, 2010 ADJOURNMENT Design Review Board September 16, 2010 Page 1 13. TOWN OF TIBURON Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission 1505 Tiburon Boulevard September 21, 2010 - 6:00 PM Town Council Chambers Tiburon, CA 94920 1 AGENDA v TOWN OF TIBURON PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Winkler, Vice-Chair McMullen, Commissioners Feldman, McDem-iott, and Allen ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action or follow-up may be referred to Town Staff or placed on a future Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Testimony regarding matters not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record. MTNT TTF~ • Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of May 18, 2010 COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING • n/a SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS • n/a BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Draft Open Space Resource Management Plan: Review and Make Recommendations to Town Council Regarding the Draft Open Space Resource Management Plan (OSMP) and an accompanying Initial Study. The OSMP provides mapping and an inventory of the twenty-one (21) Town-owned upland open space areas and makes suggestions and recommendations for future management of these open space areas ADJOURNMENT Tiburon Parks, Open Space & Trails Conunission September 21, 2010 Page 1 Off 4< SUSAN S. MURANISHI COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Margaret (Peggy) Curran Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Ms. Curran: a.) C O U N T Y ADM I N I S T R A T O R August 27, 2010 DONNA LINTON ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECEN t AUG a G' 1 a TOWN MANAGERS ()F ICI: TOWN OF TIBUj3Gjv Join us in celebrating the National Disability Employment Awareness Month of October! Register your managerial and supervisory employees for Alameda County's 7th Annual Disability Employment Awareness Conference and Training. The conference will be held on Monday, October 4, 2010 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. at the Elihu M. Harris State Building at 1515 Clay Street in Oakland. The conference is part of our ongoing collaborative venture with the State Department of Rehabilitation to facilitate the full integration of people with disabilities into the County workforce. Through the annual conference, we seek to provide managerial and supervisory employees with continuing opportunities to increase their knowledge, gain insight, and acquire additional tools to work effectively with, and improve customer service to, individuals with disabilities. This year's conference theme is "Embracing Abilities: Tools for the New Decade", focusing on the tools available to help supervise and manage our increasingly diverse workforce. The workshops will be presented by professionals in the field of human resources, vocational rehabilitation, and employment compliance. Detailed information about the conference and registration will be online at: www.acgov.org/ms/deaconf. For your reference, enclosed is the Conference Agenda. Supervisory and managerial employees of invited cities pay $30.00 per person or $25.00 per person for cities registering 3 or more persons. Lunch will be provided to all registered participants. We look forward to having you and your managerial and supervisory employees join us at our conference. If you have any questions or need more information, please contact our Assistant Diversity Programs Manager, Anita Escandor, at (510) 272-3877 or email her at anita.escandor(d,ac(,)ov.org. Very truly yours, Susan S. Muranishi County Administrator Mary Wel h Interim Director Human Resource Services Department 1221 OAK STREET • SUITE 555 • OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 • (510) 272-6984 FAX (510) 272-3784 71h Annual Alameda County Disability Employment Awareness Conference and Training for Supervisors and Managers "Embracing Abilities: Tools for the New Decade" CONFERENCE AGENDA 8:30 Refreshments and Registration 9:00 Welcome Sal Morales, Conference Moderator Opening Remarks Alice Lai-Bitker, Board of Supervisors, District 3 Susan S. Muranishi, County Administrator— Mary Welch, Interim Director, Human Resource Services 9:20- Opening Keynote Rocio de Mateo Smith, Executive Director, California Area Board 5 on Developmental Disabilities CONCURRENT WORKSHOPS (2nd floor) TIME ROOM 11' ROOM 10:00-11:00 Employment Training and Supports Service Animals at the Workplace: for Success Access, Accommodation and County Policy Panel: STEP UP Program/Project SEARCH-In-ternship Program aergin University of Canine Studies: Home of the Assistance Do Institute 11:00 -12:30 Reasonable Accommodation and Supervising Employees with Hidden Disability Awareness Disabilities Panel. Dr. Richard Pollack/Theresa Linda Gardner/Aracelia Esparza Woo/Mary Ellyn Gormley 112.30 = :30 LUNCH BREAK 1:45 - 3:45 The Elements of Disability Leaves Reasonable Accommodation: Technology and Techniques Denise Stokes/Mary Ellyn Gormley Ronald Gaal/Laura Clark 4:00 - 4:30 Closing Keynote Sharon Kuehn, Executive Director, California Network of Mental Health Clients 4:30 - 4:45 Wrap-Up Sal Morales/Theresa Woo Door Prizes s 44 41 till L,_E AG U E 01CA 1.,1 K) P ,,,N I A C I T E August 27, 2010 Assembly Member Hector De La Torre State Capitol Building, Room 4016 Sacramento, CA 95814 1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.824 0 www.cacities.org RE: AB 1955 (De La Torre) Elected Officials: Charter Cities NOTICE OF OPPOSITION, UNLESS AMENDED (As Amended 812012010) Dear Assemblyman De La Torre, On behalf the League of California Cities (League), we regret that we must oppose your AB 1955, unless it is amended to remove the flawed and unconstitutional provisions outlined in Sections (1), (4) and (5) that attempts to govern city council compensation in charter cities. The outrageous conduct that occurred in the City of Bell cannot be responded to by violating our state's highest law, the California Constitution. Since the revelation of the abusive compensation scandal in the City of Bell, the League has been an active voice in not only condemning the practices of that city, but also leading the call for reforms aimed at ensuring that such events could not occur again. The League believes that the most appropriate and effective solution to the problem is through broader transparency of public compensation that should apply to both state and local agencies. In that vein, we have worked with both Senator Correa and Assembly Member Huber and are in support of both SB 501 (Correa) and AB 2064 (Huber), which together establish salary disclosure requirements for both state and local agencies. We have also worked with the State Controller in the development of local salary disclosure reporting requirements which will be released soon. Collectively, these approaches will provide a reliable source of public compensation information. As the Bell example demonstrates, once the public is equipped with information they will react quickly to correct perceived abuses. The residents responded with outrage and staff resignations and reductions in council compensation followed. The consequences continue with investigations by both the Los Angeles County district attorney and the Attorney General. An audit is underway by the State Controller, and there continues to be rigorous public and press scrutiny. On August 11, a day after the bill appeared in print, we sent you a letter on this bill raising numerous concerns with this legislation and testified in the Senate Local Government Committee. Since that time, this bill was amended twice, but our fundamental concerns remain unaddressed. Thus, with only a few days left in the legislative session, we must convey our opposition position. This position is regrettable, because -as you know-the Brown Act changes in Sections (2) and (3) of this measure are derived from a proposal written by the League. Our opposition to Sections (1), (4) and (5) are based upon the following: 1. Measure Is Unconstitutional: Attempting to apply a specific statutory formula that is applicable to general law cities to charter cities-- violates traditional local charter authority. The Constitution is very clear on charter city authority over local compensation. Article XI, Section 5, states that city charters have 'plenary authority to provide the manner in which, the method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which the several municipal officers and employees whose compensation is paid by the city shall be elected or appointed, and for their removal, and for their compensation, and for the number of deputies, clerks and other employees that each shall have, and for the compensation. " 2. Transparency Is the Most Effective Approach: Frustration about city council compensation in the city of Bell is understandable. The question is how best to respond. The Bell city council has already dropped their salaries in response to community outrage and recalls have been proposed. Up and down the state the press has been reviewing compensation levels. Furthermore, once council salary information is disclosed via the State Controller's requirements and SB 501/AB 2064, each - community will have the information it needs to address perceived problems. Expanded transparency over compensation levels is a much more effective approach. Punishing Redevelopment Not Rational: It is unclear why local economic development and redevelopment activities in a community should come to a halt, and the associated projects, businesses and jobs suffer. There is not a rational nexus between redevelopment and city council salaries. Furthermore, not all charter cities have redevelopment agencies. Under the traditional legal process, a party accused of violating the law is afforded the opportunity for a hearing or trial in a court of law. If a judge ruled that a city violated council compensation laws, the city would be ordered to cease making the excessive payments and the affected council members could also be required to return the disputed amounts to the city. Courts have broad authority to enforce their orders and refusal to comply would be considered contempt of court. Withholding redevelopment authority is unnecessary, misplaced and punitive. Elements of this provision may also be unconstitutional. 4. Legislative Overreaction Absent Necessary Facts: Bell council members receiving $100,000 per year in compensation in a small city for part-time work is excessive, but is this really reflective of the practices of all charter cities? These provisions are hastily-conceived and attempt to paint all communities with a one-size-fits-all brush, with severe penalties that can be imposed for even minor differences with the law. Should a council member in a well-run city, with a balanced budget, that provides quality services who happens to get $100 per month more than a formula, be subject to the same accusation of "excessive compensation" as a council member from Bell? This seems off target. Two Constitutional Officers, But No Judge: In its most recent version, a complex review process is developed between the Controller and the Attorney General, both members of the executive branch, to determine if council members are being paid in excess of the amounts specified in statute. The Controller is being directed to apply the law to the facts and draw a legal conclusion and impose severe penalties based upon this determination. This concept is unconstitutional and violates Article III, Section 3, the separation of powers provisions by giving the State Controller the authority of a judge. For these reasons, the League must oppose your legislation unless the flawed and unconstitutional process outlined Sections (1), (4) and (5) are removed from the bill. Salary transparency is the best mechanism to address this issue. If you have any questions, or if I can be of assistance, please call me at (916) 658-8222. Sincerely, Daniel Carrigg Legislative Director, League of California Cities cc: Chair and Members, Senate Appropriations Committee Michael Prosio, Legislative Affairs Secretary, Governor's Office Michael Webb, Legislative Deputy, Governor's Office Sutter Health With You. For Life. September 2010 Dear Community Leader: l114~_', 4 ce~ West Bay Region 4000 Civic Center Dr. San Rafael, CA 94903 This summer, Sutter Health transferred Marin General Hospital, which we proudly operated for more than 14 years, to the Marin Healthcare District. We wish the new operators continued success as they manage this important community asset. Sutter Health has a long history of serving Marin County and continues to provide a wide range of affordable, accessible and high-quality health care services to Marin residents. This includes acute care hospital and outpatient services at the Sutter Novato Medical Campus, outpatient services at Sutter Terra Linda Health Plaza, and physician services through Sutter Pacific Medical Foundation's care centers located in Greenbrae, San Rafael and Novato. Our Marin County health care network includes a broad range of health care services. ➢ Access to Primary Care and Specialist Physicians: Sutter Pacific Medical Foundation (www.sutterpacific.org), an organization of 230+ physicians in Marin, San Francisco, Sonoma and Lake Counties, is filling a critical gap in access to health care. Currently, 36 Sutter Pacific physicians - including primary care physicians and specialists - practice in Marin. Specialties include neurology, urology, maternal-fetal medicine, various pediatric specialties, pulmonary medicine, dermatology, psychiatry, integrative medicine, liver diseases, thoracic oncology, cardiothoracic surgery consultation, thoracic oncology, and genetic testing. (See attached list of Marin physicians who are accepting new patients.) ➢ Novato Community Hospital (www.novatocommunity.sutterhealth.org): Conveniently located off Highway 101 at the Sutter Novato Medical Campus on Rowland Way, this 47-bed acute care hospital has a 24-hour Emergency Department with telemedicine stroke management capability, inpatient care for a variety of acute medical and surgical needs, a specialized program for Total Joint Replacement, and a Same Day Surgery program. ➢ Urgent Care (www.novatocommunity.sutterhealth.org): Located at Sutter Terra Linda Health Plaza, this program is open 7 days a week (except holidays) and serves patients with non-life-threatening medical conditions such as flu and minor injuries when it is not convenient to see their regular physician. ➢ Outpatient Laboratory, X-ray, and Diagnostic Imaging Services (www.novatocommunity.sutterhealth.org): Sutter Terra Linda Health Plaza offers laboratory services (5 days a week) and X-ray services (7 days a week, except holidays). Comprehensive outpatient Diagnostic Imaging services, including PET scans and Digital Mammography, are offered weekdays at the Sutter Medical Campus in Novato. Outpatient laboratory services are offered 6 days/week on the Sutter Novato Medical Campus. (over) Community Based, Not For Profit www.sutterhealth.org ➢ Physical Therapy and Sports Fitness Centers (www.novatocommunity.sutterhealth.org): These services are available at two locations: Sutter Terra Linda Health Plaza and the Sutter Medical Campus in Novato. Both emphasize sports injury prevention, recovery from orthopedic surgery, and fitness classes. ➢ Outpatient Surgery: The North Bay Regional Surgery Center (www.northbayregionalsc.org), also located on the Sutter Medical Campus in Novato, provides surgery services in a state-of-the-art, intil-hate facility. ➢ Integrative/Holistic Medicine: Physicians and allied health practitioners at the Institute for Health & Healing's (www.epmc.org/ihh) new Greenbrae location provide an array of wellness and clinical services that combine conventional and complementary medical care. Massage services are available in Novato. Services are available to all community members as well as hospitalized patients. ➢ Home Health Care: Sutter Visiting Nurses Association (www.suttervna.org) provides a range of home health services for residents recuperating from short-term illnesses, as well as those with chronic conditions. ➢ Child Development Services: Anew addition to Marin, the Kalmanovitz Child Development Center (http://www.cpmc.org/advanced/pediatrics/services/child development.html) offers speech and language therapy, occupational therapy and psychological services at Sutter Terra Linda Health Plaza. All of our Marin facilities are part of Sutter Health's medical network. Importantly, if Marin residents have complex medical needs that cannot be met in Marin, they have ready access to Sutter Health's broader network of comprehensive, integrated care. Sutter Pacific Medical Foundation provides physician specialists throughout the North Bay. Between California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco and Sutter Medical Center of Santa Rosa, we offer expertise in high-risk obstetrics, neonatal care, organ transplants, advanced cardiac, stroke and gastrointestinal care, neurosciences and bariatric surgery, among other specialties. We thank you for the privilege of continuing to meet your health care needs now and in the future. If you have any questions about our services, please contact Kathie Graham, our Communications and Public Affairs Director, at 415.492-4896 or visit the websites listed above. We also have enclosed a map of our Marin County locations for your convenience. Sincerely, Martin Brotman, MD, President West Bay Region P//f David Bradley, CEO North Bay Hospitals Morris Flaum, MD, MBA, CEO Sutter Pacific Medical Foundation Enclosures Primary Care Internal Medicine Rebecca N. Li, M.D. Gyorgy Pataki, M.D. Ellen Rosenthal, M.D. 1350 S. Eliseo Drive #220, Greenbrae Tareq Elqousy, M.D. 101 Rowland Way #220, Novato Pediatrics Camille Brown, M.D. Stacy Drasen, M.D. Albert Goldberg, M.D. Cindy Greenberg, M.D. 750 Las Gallinas Ave. #210, San Rafael Tareq Elqousy, M.D. 101 Rowland Way #220, Novato Specialty Care Cardiac Electrophysiology Steven Hao, M.D. Richard Hongo, M.D. 101 Rowland Way #220, Novato 1350 S. Eliseo Drive #220, Greenbrae Dermatology Christine Jacobson, M.D. Kara Reinke, M.D. 1350 S. Eliseo Drive #220, Greenbrae Ear, Nose & Throat / Head and Neck Surgery Mark Singer, M.D. 101 Rowland Way #220, Novato Our growing team of primary care } doctors and specialists in Marin welcome new patients. Specialty Care (cont.) Integrative Medicine Bruce Roberts, M.D. 1350 S. Eliseo Drive #120, Greenbrae Liver Disease & Transplant Timothy Davern, M.D. Adil Ed Wakil, M,D. 101 Rowland Way #220, Novato Neurology Max Duncan, D.O. Richard Mendius, M.D. Smriti Wagle, D.O. 1350 S. Eliseo Drive #220, Greenbrae 101 Rowland Way #220, Novato Pediatric Specialty Care Nikola Tede, M.D. Pediatric Cardiology 1100 S. Eliseo Drive, Suite 1, Greenbrae Suruchi Bhatia, M.D. Alison Reed, M.D. Pediatric Endocrinology 1100 S. Eliseo Drive, Suite 1, Greenbrae 101 Rowland Way #220, Novato J. Antonio Quiros, M.D. Pediatric Gastroenterology 101 Rowland Way #220, Novato Louise Lo, M.D. Pediatric Hematology/Oncology 101 Rowland Way #220, Novato Prenatal Diagnosis, Genetics & Ultrasound Regina Arvon, M.D. Bonnie Dwyer, M.D. Denise Main, M.D. Carl Otto, M.D. Kristen Pullen, M.D. Kimberlee Sorem, M.D. 1100 S. Eliseo Drive, Suite 1, Greenbrae Psychiatry Mary Burke, M.D. 1350 S. Eliseo Drive #220, Greenbrae Pulmonary Medicine Steven Hays, M.D. 101 Rowland Way #220, Novato Surgery: Cardiothoracic (consultative care) Glenn Egrie, M.D.. 101 Rowland Way #220, Novato Thoracic Oncology Peter Anastassiou, M.D. 101 Rowland Way #220, Novato Urology Uzay Yasar, M.D. 101 Rowland Way #220, Novato Farhad Sahebkar, M.D. Pediatric Neurology 1100 S. Eliseo Drive, Suite 1, Greenbrae 101 Rowland Way #220, Novato Call 1-888-699-DOGS (3627) or visit sutterpacific.org to find the doctor for you. 0 1350 South Eliseo Drive, Ste. 220 Greenbrae, CA 94904 (415) 923-6500 Dermatology 0 1350 South Eliseo Drive, Ste. 220 Greenbrae, CA 94904 (415) 464-0411 Ear, Nose & Throat / Head & Neck Surgery O 101 Rowland Way, Ste. 220 Novato, CA 94945 (415) 600-3800 Petaluma /lam S Pediatrics 0 750 Las Gallinas Avenue, Ste. 210 San Rafael, CA 94903 15 479-7244 0 S0 via Tamar Vista Corte Madera BNd. Hospital & Urgent Care Novato Community Hos ital Home Health Care © Sutter Vsting Nurses Association 4000 Civic Center Drive, Ste. 190 San Rafael, CA 94903 (415) 492-4600 Integrative Medicine 0 Institute for Health & Healing 1350 South Eliseo Drive, Ste. 120 Greenbrae, CA 94904 (415) 461-9000 O 101 Rowland Way, Ste. 220 Novato, CA 94945 (415) 461-9000 Kalmanovitz Child Development Center • Speech/Language Therapy • Occupational Therapy • Psychology © 4000 Civic Center Drive, Ste. 210B San Rafael, CA 94903 (415) 600-6200 Laboratory Services 0 101 Rowland Way, Ste. 220 Novato, CA 94945 (415) 878-7208 165 Rowland Way, Ste. 104 Novato, CA 94945 (415) 209-1337 © 4000 Civic Center Drive, Ste. 209 San Rafael, CA 94903 (415) 492-4840 Internal Medicine 1350 S h 1"T ) 101 R l d W St 220 180 Rowland way p © Novato CA 94945 Outpatient Surgery 0 North Bay Regional Surgery Center 0 out Eliseo Drive, Ste. 220 ow an ay, e. 0 , 100 Rowland Way Ste. 145 Greenbrae, CA 94904 Novato, CA 94945 (41.5) 209-1300 , Novato CA 94945 (415) 464-0411 (415) 878-7200 Emergency Department , (415) 209-2500 Q 101 Rowland Way, Ste. 220 Prenatal Diagnosis 0 80 Rowland Physical Therapy & Novato, CA, 94945 Genetics & Ultrasound Novato, California 94945 Sports (415) 878-7200 1100 South Eliseo Drive, Ste. l Greenbrae CA 94904 (415) 209-1300 ©4000 Civic c Center Drive, Ste. 214 Center Liver Disease , (415) 600-6400 Urgent Care Center San Rafael, 8694903 (415} 492-4860 Management 8 Transplant © (For non-emergency medical care) 0 101 lowland Way, Ste. 220 Novato, CA 94945 Psychiatry 0 240 Tamal Vista Boulevard, Ste. 190 4000 Civic Center Drive, Ste. 206 San Rafael, CA 94903 © 100 Rowland Way, Ste. 310 Novato 94945 (415) 600-1020 Corte Madera, CA 94925 (415) 492-4800 , (415)209-1460 (415) 6th-3626 Neurology 8 JP X-ray 0 1350 South Eliseo Drive, Ste. 220 Greenbrae CA 94904 0 1350 South Eliseo Drive, Ste. 220 Greenbrae CA 94904 S surgery • 180 Rowland Way 0 4000 Civic Center Drive, Ste. 209 , (415) 464-0411 , (415) 484-0411 Novato, CA 94945 San CA 94903 Rafael, (415) 209-1460 92--4840 { 0 101 Rowland Way, Ste. 220 Pulmonary Medicine Novato, CA 94945 101 Rowland Way, Ste. 220 support Services (415) 464-0411 Novato, CA 94945 (415) 600-5864 Diagnostic Imaging Pediatric Specialty Services 0 CT, MRI, Nuclear Med, 0 1100 South Eliseo Drive, Ste.1 Surgery-Cardlothoractc PET, tone density, Greenbrae, CA 94904 (Consuit$) mammogrmphy ultrasound , (415) 600-0750 0 101 Rowland Way, Ste. 220 180 Rowland Way Novato, CA 94945 Novato, CA 94945 O 101 Rowland Way, Ste. 220 (415) 6OD1386 (415) 209-1522 Novato, CA 94945 (415) 600-0750 Thoracic Oncology Electrocardiogram (EKG) 0 101 Rowland Way, Ste. 220 0 101 Rowland Way, Ste. 220 Novato, CA 94945 Novato, CA 94945 (415) 600-7860 (415) 878-7200 urology 0 4000 Ci* Center 0 101 Rowland Way, Ste. 220 San Rafael, CA 94903 Drive, Ste. 209 Novato, CA 94945 (415) 492-4840 (707) 521-8900 Our network of care includes doctors urgent care centers and hospitals throughout San Franco, Marin and Sonoma counties who work together to meet your health cafe needs. Call 1-888-699-DOCS (3627) to find a doctor near you. X10 Physician Practices Cardiac Electrophysiology 0 101 Rowland Way, Ste. 220 Novato, CA 94945 (415) 923-6500